But private violence is also just violence and the game is to seek arrangements that mitigate violence from all sides. If any private act, say of violence or theft, can be unjust - the remedy is going to involve violence or threat thereof. If it can’t be than any rule set can exist then it’s just private violence all the time. Oh no we can justifiably put murderers in prisons just means murderers do whatever they want.

What I’m trying to say is that the private/government distinction is illusory; the state is actually a bunch of private individuals acting as individuals. There’s no magic halo of legitimate authority. All violence is already private.

What I’m trying to say is that the private/government distinction is illusory; the state is actually a bunch of private individuals acting as individuals. There’s no magic halo of legitimate authority. All violence is already private.

So there's no emergent order in the state or anarchy?

"just build a quantum foam wall and make the tardigrades pay for it."
--Hugh

But private violence is also just violence and the game is to seek arrangements that mitigate violence from all sides. If any private act, say of violence or theft, can be unjust - the remedy is going to involve violence or threat thereof. If it can’t be than any rule set can exist then it’s just private violence all the time. Oh no we can justifiably put murderers in prisons just means murderers do whatever they want.

What I’m trying to say is that the private/government distinction is illusory; the state is actually a bunch of private individuals acting as individuals. There’s no magic halo of legitimate authority. All violence is already private.

Right. And that's very different from "Yes, things would be better if we abolished the state and set up this other system."

I don't think there's a magic halo of legitimate authority. I do think a society where people mostly do follow the rules about murder and theft is better than one where they don't, and that a power structure that often tries to make most people better off as a goal is better than a power structure devoted purely to benefiting the people at the top.

Legitimacy is a behavioral thing. Do people basically act as though the laws of the land come about by way of a process that’s acceptable enough that most people abide by rules even if they don’t like them. Do they generally follow rules arising from institutions without 24/7 gun in face enforcement. Failed states don’t have this feature. Autocracies may have this feature in theory but you don’t know because gun is in face 24/7, so to me it’s really hard to talk about systems with no institutional exit from current regime as having legitimacy.

Five pages arguing over the minutia of just how small the government can be. It's like some kind of libertarian discussion board around here all of a sudden.

"But we're already in anarchy, ha!" isn't minutia, it's a proud declaration of having tried to waste the other peoples' time.

"Better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer."
"Cyberpunk never really gave the government enough credit for their ability to secure a favorable prenup during the Corporate-State wedding." - Shem

Well if the state is little more than a gentleman's agreement and you could leave the state at any time is it really a state?

"You can leave it if you want!" Is the usual argument statists make when they don't want to admit that the state is coercive. What's different, here?

Yeah gawd I frickin' hate that one. "And go where" is met with "that's your problem - technically you can do it so fuck you it's a valid social contract*" which is amusing because the Venn is strong with, "Well if you're driven by economic necessity is it REALLY a choice" for sex work or even "capitalism is slavery" bullshit.

*they could usually give no shits about voluntary vs involuntary because voluntary is individualism and that's Not Okay in most statist minds, at least not for parts of the state that they support. The closest I've seen is, "You give consent by staying," which is yeah no.

"The constitution is more of a BDSM agreement with a safe word." - Sandy

"Neoliberalism. Austerity. Booga booga!!!!" - JasonL

"We can't confirm rumors that Lynndie England is in the running to be Gina Haspel's personal aide." - DAR

Yeah gawd I frickin' hate that one. "And go where" is met with "that's your problem - technically you can do it so fuck you it's a valid social contract*" which is amusing because the Venn is strong with, "Well if you're driven by economic necessity is it REALLY a choice" for sex work or even "capitalism is slavery" bullshit.

*they could usually give no shits about voluntary vs involuntary because voluntary is individualism and that's Not Okay in most statist minds, at least not for parts of the state that they support. The closest I've seen is, "You give consent by staying," which is yeah no.

Fuck yeah, same. And despite that disdain of voluntary action, they still aren't willing to acknowledge that state power is coercive. It's the most inane, bad-faith bullshit.

"Better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer."
"Cyberpunk never really gave the government enough credit for their ability to secure a favorable prenup during the Corporate-State wedding." - Shem

Reminds me of ... where did I just hear this - some podcast or something recently was talking about polling among dem soc types about what they like about socialism. The economic equality thing was present but the big thing was this idea that you should have to debase yourself for a wage - change the 'wage slave' model.

That stuff drives me nuts - someone has to go to work and yea do things that aren't their favorite things so you can have that check bro.

Reminds me of ... where did I just hear this - some podcast or something recently was talking about polling among dem soc types about what they like about socialism. The economic equality thing was present but the big thing was this idea that you should have to debase yourself for a wage - change the 'wage slave' model.

That stuff drives me nuts - someone has to go to work and yea do things that aren't their favorite things so you can have that check bro.

And what do they think happens in socialism? Yeah, in an edge case you can have voluntary leisure, but that can get unsustainable pretty fast, and eventually you don't work and either the goon squad shows up or you stop getting your voucher for the bread lines, except for the truly disabled who probably end up in a pretty grim sanitarium-by-another-name (maybe 'assisted living facility' maybe something less euphemismy).

"The constitution is more of a BDSM agreement with a safe word." - Sandy

"Neoliberalism. Austerity. Booga booga!!!!" - JasonL

"We can't confirm rumors that Lynndie England is in the running to be Gina Haspel's personal aide." - DAR

Reminds me of ... where did I just hear this - some podcast or something recently was talking about polling among dem soc types about what they like about socialism. The economic equality thing was present but the big thing was this idea that you should have to debase yourself for a wage - change the 'wage slave' model.

That stuff drives me nuts - someone has to go to work and yea do things that aren't their favorite things so you can have that check bro.

And what do they think happens in socialism? Yeah, in an edge case you can have voluntary leisure, but that can get unsustainable pretty fast, and eventually you don't work and either the goon squad shows up or you stop getting your voucher for the bread lines, except for the truly disabled who probably end up in a pretty grim sanitarium-by-another-name (maybe 'assisted living facility' maybe something less euphemismy).

Yeah the wage-slave crowd is stupid by choice. If everybody's a poet, who picks up the garbage?

I'm pretty sympathetic to the people who state, as an ideal, that no one should depend on the approval of anyone else for their living needs. I don't think there's a practical way to accomplish that.

There's a self-described communist on Tumblr I really respect. He says that it's ethically mandatory to work towards the abolition of all hierarchy. And also he supported Clinton over Sanders in 2016 because he thought her policies would be much better at making people well-off in the short and medium term.

It’s nonsense on skates as an ethical standard. Exchange of value is the basis of wealth and it is contingent in some sense on the approval of customers etc. Organizing factors of production requires either price signals or direction by some central organizing authority - again the approval of others.

It’s nonsense on skates as an ethical standard. Exchange of value is the basis of wealth and it is contingent in some sense on the approval of customers etc. Organizing factors of production requires either price signals or direction by some central organizing authority - again the approval of others.

It’s also oddly solipsistic for professed community types.

I'm not going to defend it as socialist.

I, personally, am a radical individualist and want to break people free from dependence on communities or the approval of other people. The market is excellent at doing this, but isn't perfect.

The market doesn’t do that at all though. It chains interests thorough voluntary exchange. For the very great majority of cases you can’t exist without doing stuff other people want - we are all fulfilling demand.

It makes you much less dependent on the views or approval of any particular other people. You have more independence of you have to sell your labor on the market than if you have to convince a specific person to support or tolerate you. A liberal market model is freer than, say, a patronage model, or an obedience-to-the-elders model.

It's not as free or independent as a system where no one needs to answer to anyone to meet their basic needs. But I don't know how we would practically create such a system at the present.

If you have a system with people in it, it's going to end up working to punish or reward people on some arbitrary basis preferred by the group in charge.

And there will always be some group in charge. You'll never get rid of hierarchy while things have to get done, even if it's just the power disparity of the world-owes-me-living folks vs. the people with their hands on the welfare spigot.

"Better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer."
"Cyberpunk never really gave the government enough credit for their ability to secure a favorable prenup during the Corporate-State wedding." - Shem

Legitimacy is a behavioral thing. Do people basically act as though the laws of the land come about by way of a process that’s acceptable enough that most people abide by rules even if they don’t like them. Do they generally follow rules arising from institutions without 24/7 gun in face enforcement. Failed states don’t have this feature. Autocracies may have this feature in theory but you don’t know because gun is in face 24/7, so to me it’s really hard to talk about systems with no institutional exit from current regime as having legitimacy.

What's the behavioral difference between people who act as though the rules arise from an acceptable process versus people who follow rules because they don't want to be kidnapped/murdered by the blackshirts?

"Is a Lulztopia the best we can hope for?!?" ~Taktix®
"Inexplicably cockfighting monsters that live in your pants" ~Jadagul

Whatever you want to call the state of dysfunction and only obeying while being watched in the US, the truth is there's a very large range of observed acceptance among the peoples of various men with guns living arrangements. When people can vote you out and you actually leave even though you have a military command, that's big thing. Failed states look very different from the US or Japan or Norway or France or whatever. You might wish all people acted as though all state power were illegitimate, but I don't think you observe that in the real world across states.

Whatever you want to call the state of dysfunction and only obeying while being watched in the US, the truth is there's a very large range of observed acceptance among the peoples of various men with guns living arrangements. When people can vote you out and you actually leave even though you have a military command, that's big thing. Failed states look very different from the US or Japan or Norway or France or whatever. You might wish all people acted as though all state power were illegitimate, but I don't think you observe that in the real world across states.

If you observed nicole and I with the sound off, you would see that we drive on the right, stop at stop signs, pick up after our dogs, pay our taxes (voluntarily!), sort our recyclables, pay our speeding tickets rather than burn down city hall, and eat at Chipotle when we're hungry rather than cracking open our neighbors' skulls and feasting on their brains. Presumably for no other reason than we recognize the system's legitimacy.

"Is a Lulztopia the best we can hope for?!?" ~Taktix®
"Inexplicably cockfighting monsters that live in your pants" ~Jadagul

Whatever you want to call the state of dysfunction and only obeying while being watched in the US, the truth is there's a very large range of observed acceptance among the peoples of various men with guns living arrangements. When people can vote you out and you actually leave even though you have a military command, that's big thing. Failed states look very different from the US or Japan or Norway or France or whatever. You might wish all people acted as though all state power were illegitimate, but I don't think you observe that in the real world across states.

If you observed nicole and I with the sound off, you would see that we drive on the right, stop at stop signs, pick up after our dogs, pay our taxes (voluntarily!), sort our recyclables, pay our speeding tickets rather than burn down city hall, and eat at Chipotle when we're hungry rather than cracking open our neighbors' skulls and feasting on their brains. Presumably for no other reason than we recognize the system's legitimacy.